PLA strike strategies in westpac HIC

This:

coolgod said:

Because your imagination limits you?

Click to expand...

is fishing for a cheap gotcha. As for my post, that was mirroring the original wording of the post I responded to. And there is no contradiction, because you have again overlooked the original context. Which I already pointed out.

Wrought said:

That's why there is no assumption. You can assume one now if you like, but that's hardly the original discussion or disagreement.

Click to expand...

coolgod said:

You can imagine free lunches for US military but no free lunches for Chinese military.

Click to expand...

Yes. Because that's what the original discussion was about. And the fact that you can't imagine such a thing without making it "fair" says a lot more about you than it does about the discussion. Hypotheticals do not need to be fair to be valid; they can be as perfectly fair or utterly unfair as the context requires. After all, war is never fair.

Wrought said:

And the fact that you can't imagine such a thing without making it "fair" says a lot more about you than it does about the discussion.

Click to expand...

You are right, I admit defeat. I am actually stupid for arguing online with a person who thinks it's worth discussing "Assuming US military wins, therefore US military wins? " scenarios.

coolgod said:

You are right, I admit defeat. I am actually stupid for arguing online with a person who thinks it's worth discussing "Assuming US military wins, therefore US military wins? " scenarios.

Click to expand...

Glad to hear it. I didn't think it was worth discussing either, which is exactly why I wrote my first post. It should be completely obvious.

As for your stupidity, well, those are your words not mine. No wonder Patch doesn't post much around here. I can hardly blame him.

Even with the generous charitable assumption that US MIC cuts excess fat, corruption, and pivots exclusively to China, there is a 8000 mile distance from US to the first island chain. This geographic distance is a hard limit to the US sortie rates generation, and availability of hardened bases within strike distance of China. US has power projection in the form of carriers and airbases, but with recent advancement PLA modernization, they have to operate farther and farther away from first island chain, limiting their operational efficiency. See moving US marines from Okinawa to Guam. Basically, US has to execute flawlessly some stealthy penetration SEAD, air dominance, and Malacca convergence to have some semblance of a fight, which is debatable with the advent of J-36 and J-50.

I think people are overtly fixated on the technical aspects of the conflict. I think the much bigger issue is with Trump’s style of diplomacy, with him openly calling for annexations of close allies such as Canada and Greenland. Imagine how this would look from the optics of Japan/South Korea when the sovereignty of tier one US allies with much closer all cultural/religious/demographics to the U.S. are being treated this way for God knows what reason. In times of conflict, what incentive is there for them to provide military support or even access to bases and logistics? What will prevent the U.S. from potentially annexing and/or abandoning them when they’ve outlasted their usefulness?

coolgod said:

WTF kind of assumption is this? Assuming US military wins, therefore US military wins?

Click to expand...

Assuming US military wins, assuming Chinese leadership is stupid, assuming the US wins a war thousands of km from it's industrial heartland, assuming the US manages to maintain a logistical trail of thousands of km in a near-peer conflict, assuming that China is too cheap to invest in the PLA, assuming that US political system is not controlled by oligarchs (one of the biggest assumption of all)

If you make all these assumptions, China has lost, US has won.

Meanwhile back in the real world of the "reformed" MIC
Senate Republicans release budget plan with $150B more for defense